MOHINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3745/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021466202511 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning implicitly accepted the petitioner's argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that if statutory authorities act beyond their jurisdiction, particularly in light of specific circulars or notifications that delineate powers, such actions are liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and orders, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohinder Singh, challenged notices and orders issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-2016. These included a notice dated 04.04.2022 under Section 148, an order dated 06.07.2023 under Section 142, show cause notices dated 06.12.2023 and 11.01.2024, and a recovery notice dated 28.01.2025, along with consequential proceedings. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The Revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices and orders issued under Sections 148, 142, and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-2016 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders because the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on judgments from a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3745-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121 CWP-3745-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.02.2025 Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Ms. Aakriti and Ms. Ambika Jindal, Advocates,for the petitioner Mr. Saruabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 04.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 06.07.2023 issued under Section 142 of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 06.12.2023 issued under Section 144 of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 11.01.2024 and recovery notice dated 28.01.2025 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2015-2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.02.15 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3745-2025 2 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 04.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 06.07.2023 issued under Section 142 of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 06.12.2023 issued under Section 144 of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 11.01.2024 and recovery notice dated 28.01.2025 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2015-2016, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 11.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.15 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →